The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-03-26

EnglISh words have not acquired sec
ondary meaningp And this meaning
often supersedes the literal one. How
is the term day used in the Bible ? See
Gen. xix. 81, 38; XVI. 33; XXI 40.
lisa. xiii.6; xix. 16, Is, 10, 81, %. In
all these instances, and 1 might quote
an hundred more just like them, the
word is the same in the original that it
is in the first chapter of Genesis and
in every instance it stands for an indef-
mite period of time.
A few years ago the Lader land that
is a paper agnostic enough to satisfy
any reasonable skeptic,) contained an
article which declared that there was
such remarkable agreement between
the science of geology and the first
chapter Of Genesis, that the science,
las the theory of inspiration was mad
missible,) must have been as well un-
derstood in ancient times as now This
reminds me of story told of Horace
Greeley. When any one told him a
story that taxed his credulity too much,
he would say, "Tell that to Mrs. Gree
ley. She will believe anything except
the Bible !" 1 have seen men with the
same kind Of twist in their mental
constitution. L only indicated the agree
ment between Genesis and geology in
my article. I might show it at length,
and in detail. Perhaps will sometime.
If the "divine'' mentioned really
meant to say that the Hebrew word,
rendered day, always stood for Pc
Rod of twenty-four hours, he was, as
I have shown, poor authority Gin the
original tongue" Of course we would
expect an inspired book to be consist
ent with itself, and with truth, 'no
matter how many persons were the
WRITER'S The Bible consistent. There
fore it is inspired. said it was "mar-
vel," because inspiration is.
Mr.. Bennett and the ''skeptics' he
mentions, seem to have opinions of
their own about the relation of the Nj
cean council to the Bible. It is as i'm
portant for skeptics to know what they
are talking about, as for anybody. They
ought, therefore, to know that the ia
nous council of Nice was held in the
year 325; and that more than two GEN.
turies before that date, the Bible had
been translated into many languages,
and manuscripts of all these versions
had been multiplied all over the world.
Many of these versions, and even some
lAaf>the manuscripts, or immediate cop
les of them, still exist, and have been
laboriously collated by learned men,
to ascertain the true text. Moreover,
the church had long been divided into
hostile sects as it is to-day, each jeal-
Gus of its peculiar opinions, and each
watching the others, expressly to pre-
vent him tampering with the text. 1t
was as literally impossible for the Nj
cean council, or any other body of
men, or any available human agency,
to corrupt the Bible in the way sup
posed, as it would be for sectarian
convention to do it at the present day.
The assumption is utterly preposter-
GUS. The council had as much to do
with shaping our Bible as the man in
the moon. 1t is derived from sources
much earlier than the date of this as
semblage. That it attempted some
thing of the kind may be true. AS to
rejecting apocryphal books, or retain
ing canonical ones, the opinion of the
council goes for what it is worth, and
no more. The talk so common among
unbelievers of a certain calibre, about
the absurdity Of voting books into or
out of the Bible, II have heard it ever
since can rememberl, only causes a
well informed man to smile at their
simplicity. Every book in the Bible
stands ON its own footing and its can
onical character is determined by evil
dence entirely independent of the vote
of any council.
1t is not to be supposed that man
will be impressed with the evidences
of the inspiration of the Scripture, if
he has never studied the subject-if the
most he knows about the Bible is de-
rived from Paine's cage of Reason, -
or some similar book. 1t is well to read
such books; but if he seeks the "real
truth" let him also read such works as
Horne's Introduction" DR.. Geikie's
"Hours With the Bible," or others
like them. A brief newspaper article
cannot contain what a ponderous quarto
is not large enough to hold.
have also received a communica-
tion on the subject, from DR. Mckay,
of Seneca, Kansas. He thinks the Old
Testament ought not to be regarded as a
part of "our Christian Bible" because
in the New, Christ is said to be the full
fllment of the claw and prophets. y
That would be the reason, or one of the
reasons, should give on the other side
of the question. OF course, the Old is
not to be taken as equal in Importance,
or in fullness of revelation, to the New.
Take it for what it claims to be, or what
the New claims for it; no more and no